[greentriple]

Buying guns for the bad guy...


http://shar.es/sNIWr

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[janice6]

I bet a lot of thugs get their GF's to buy for them. They're the same element.


Many times they even get the GF to carry the weapon for them (media stories) so they are clean to the cops. They have also given the gun to the GF after the shooting so they are clean. Not new.

Go get the thugs and their GF's.

[Fred Hansen]

Gun-control is only one of the many skill sets that are sadly lacking among the Democrat's permanent underclass. Had said permanent underclass a sense of shame, those who are eternally poverty-pimped--by America's bleeding heart liberals--would acknowlege their "gun-control" shortcomings, and do something to correct it.

How can anyone lacking disciplined marksmanship seriously endeavor to solve age-old questions like:

1) What color(s) should I be representin'?

2) Am I peelin' that cheddar ol' school, or do I be trippin'?

3) Is crack whack?

4) Which gang signs should I flash 'all up in heah'?

It's an obvious formula for disaster.

Gun-control should be a priority with the liberal pigs who insist on dooming entire segments of society to being dependent on .gov entitlements for their miserable (and quite frankly pointless) existence.

All proud liberal gun owners should demand that marksmanship be part of the curriculum at school. Why have quadriplegic gangstas rolling around in wheelchairs when--with just a tiny bit more effort--they could be enjoying a good ol' dirt-nap? Why make Nekwandre suffer unecessarily? Why cause some innocent kid, playing across the street, to get hit by a wild shot? Aim damn it!

Do it for the children.

[IhRedrider]

greentriple

What are you trying to say? That we need more laws to make an already illegal activity illegal?

Are you in support of restricting free men from arming themselves? Or are you suggesting that only women should be barred from buying guns?

[Fred Hansen]

Originally Posted by IhRedrider

greentriple

What are you trying to say? That we need more laws to make an already illegal activity illegal?

Are you in support of restricting free men from arming themselves? Or are you suggesting that only women should be barred from buying guns?

greentriple tends to drive-by post.

[Cambo]

Greentriple hates guns as much as he hates common sense.

[Jerry]

What greentriple fails to or is just plain incapable of understanding is that gun control never has and never will work. All gun control has and ever will do is hinder honorable law-abiding citizens.

[humanguerrilla]

Excellent reporting on what one ATF agent thinks with "no concrete numbers on the trend" and not even one direct example of the phenomenon.

They can break down the number of recovered guns by quarter or whatever but can't produce any stats, evidence whatsoever of what the article is about. If I produced stuff like this at work I would probably be accused of pulling it out of my butt, being incompetent and not being fact based, and eventually let go.

Also shame on the gun website the link is from for adding the art of the girl in camo, playing into how the antis want to explain away the uptick in women buying firearms for self defense and getting involved in hunting and the shooting sports as, the unsupported depiction in the article.

[greentriple]

I guess I'll have to get rid of my guns, since I hate them.

I posted the article because I was interested I your neo-con, anti anyone who does not drink the cool aid, opinion.

For me the article seems to mitigate against regulation as it clearly states that regardless of restrictions "felons" will get guns. That those who have no restrictions, if bent on breaking the law will do so, ad restrictions can't stop that.

However, I'm not an advocate of open carry nor shall issue, but that's probably because they don't affect me.

And as for the drive by post, well I got busy with a real drive by and had to bust a hump making sure justice was served.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[Jerry]

Originally Posted by greentriple

I guess I'll have to get rid of my guns, since I hate them.

I posted the article because I was interested I your neo-con, anti anyone who does not drink the cool aid, opinion.

For me the article seems to mitigate against regulation as it clearly states that regardless of restrictions "felons" will get guns. That those who have no restrictions, if bent on breaking the law will do so, ad restrictions can't stop that.

However, I'm not an advocate of open carry nor shall issue, but that's probably because they don't affect me.

And as for the drive by post, well I got busy with a real drive by and had to bust a hump making sure justice was served.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Your first problem is that you don't believe "you" shouldn't own firearms but rather that it should be hard for others, (honorably, law-abiding men and women) to obtain them in an attempt to stop criminals from getting them. DOESN'T WORK! Your article proves it. Your second problem is you believe restrictions really prevent criminals from getting carrying and using firearms... even though its been proven to you that it doesn't. Your third problem, one that plagues most liberals, is when people call you on your emotional rather than logically generated opinions you get nasty. The latter is why every-time you post here your posts are treated as trolling and you are treated in a like manner.

Change your attitude an perhaps others will change theirs. As far as convincing the majority here that gun-control is a good thing it ain't a gonn happen.

[greentriple]

Originally Posted by Jerry

Your first problem is that you don't believe "you" shouldn't own firearms but rather that it should be hard for others, (honorably, law-abiding men and women) to obtain them in an attempt to stop criminals from getting them. DOESN'T WORK! Your article proves it. Your second problem is you believe restrictions really prevent criminals from getting carrying and using firearms... even though its been proven to you that it doesn't. Your third problem, one that plagues most liberals, is when people call you on your emotional rather than logically generated opinions you get nasty. The latter is why every-time you post here your posts are treated as trolling and you are treated in a like manner.

Change your attitude an perhaps others will change theirs. As far as convincing the majority here that gun-control is a good thing it ain't a gonn happen.

Did you read my reply Jerry, or just jump to your normal antagonistic self-indulgant attack.

But for conversation sake let me try again.

The hate guns comment was a response to a previous poster claiming I hate guns.
The fly by and neo-con were also in response to antagonist posts by others. You included. I'd not started the attacks, I simply posted an article and enquired about others opinions on it.

As for the posters who asked my opinion on the piece, I gave it. And Jerry, if you could read, you'd have read that I suggest regulation is bad because the article shows that it does not keep guns out of the bad guys hands, and trust me I'm confident I know that from real world experience to a much greater degree than you probably (leaving room for error) do.

As for civilian carry, well, that's my opinion, I don't think ownership for law abides should be infringed, but carry, that's different.

So, please read and comprehend before knee jerking a post. Oh, and I fully expect chastisement for some feeble perceived infraction to add to you puffed chest and fanned feathers.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

[Jerry]

If I hadn't read your reply how would do you think the pertinent portion got highlighted? Keep acting like a jerk and people will continue treating you like a jerk. Keep up the attacks and see where it gets you. If you wish to continue posting in this forum I strongly advise you read the GT rules.